Sons of Iraq Collapsing?
Very disturbing story by Leila Fadel in McClatchy on growing tensions between the Iraqi government and the Sons of Iraq. She starts by recounting the now well-documented problems in trying to integrate the SoIs into the Iraqi security forces:
The Iraqi government has also been stepping up its efforts to detain, chase away, or otherwise exclude the SoIs/Awakening groups. Now, fast on the heels of actions against SoIs in Diyala (and escalating sectarian tensions), a senior Iraqi military commander is threatening a major crackdown in Baghdad. According to Fidel:American military officials here have always said that the creation of the Sunni militias was at least as important to the precipitous drop in violence as the presence of 30,000 more U.S. troops, and that incorporating them into the security forces would go a long way toward bringing about the sort of reconciliation needed for long-term stability.
After initially embracing the idea of bringing the militia members into the security forces, however, Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki hasn't followed through. A committee that Maliki formed to organize the militias' transition to full-fledged government security troops fell apart and was reconstituted only recently. U.S. officials acknowledge that the hiring of the Sunnis has slowed to a crawl.
U.S. and Iraqi officials agree that the Maliki government never agreed to hire more than 20 percent of the militia members. A Maliki ally said it was unreasonable to expect otherwise.
"All the Americans are doing is paying them just to be quiet," said Haider al Abadi, a leading member of Maliki's Dawa political party and the head of the economic and investment committee in the parliament. The Iraqi government, he said, can't "justify paying monthly salaries to people on the grounds that they are ex-insurgents."
The best that most of them could expect is to be placed in vocational training for trades such as bricklaying and plumbing, along with a slew of other unemployed people.
The government has allocated $150 million for such training. So far this year, the U.S. military has spent $303 million on Sons of Iraq salaries.
[. . .]
Abadi, the Maliki ally, was blunt in calling the militias a problem.
"You've created a problem here," he said. "You can't get rid of a program by shoveling it on the Iraqi government shoulders."
What will the SoI response be? Here's a clue: many of these guys are "former" insurgents."We cannot stand them, and we detained many of them recently," said one senior Iraqi commander in Baghdad, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the issue. "Many of them were part of al Qaida despite the fact that many of them are helping us to fight al Qaida."
He said the army was considering setting a Nov. 1 deadline for those militia members who hadn't been absorbed into the security forces or given civilian jobs to give up their weapons. After that, they'd be arrested, he said.
And according to a senior intelligence analyst in the Fidel piece:Some militia members say that such a move would force them into open warfare with the government again.
"If they disband us now, I will tell you that history will show we will go back to zero," said Mullah Shahab al Aafi, a former emir, or leader, of insurgents in Diyala province who's the acting commander of 24,000 Sons of Iraq there, 11,000 of whom are on the U.S. payroll. "I will not give up my weapons. I will never give them up, and I will carry my weapon again. If it is useless to talk to the government, I will be forced to carry my weapons and my pistol."
The conflict over the militias underscores how little has changed in Iraq in the past year despite the drop in violence, which American politicians often attribute to the temporary increase of U.S. troops in Iraq that ended in July.
[. . .]
Farouk Abd al Sattar Hassan Mohammed al Obeidi, a deputy Sunni militia commander in the northern Baghdad neighborhood of Adhamiyah, wore a military uniform in an interview with McClatchy last week because he considered his men and himself to be soldiers.
He voiced frustration that his men had applied repeatedly to join the Iraqi Security Forces, to no avail.
"We wish we were part of the army. With deep remorse the government is sectarian," Obeidi said. He described his alliance with the U.S. forces as "the enemy of your enemy is your friend."
"The Sons of Iraq achieved security. Don't they deserve to enter the army?"
Obeidi will never see that happen. On Sunday, a suicide bomber on a bicycle killed him, along with five of his men and nine civilians.
Ya think?"If they only take a portion of them it's possible they will return to their insurgent ways," one senior intelligence analyst said, acknowledging that most of the men now called the Sons of Iraq had been insurgents, for al Qaida in Iraq and other groups that considered themselves resistance fighters against Americans.
He called the issue the "long-term threat."
Some argue that most SoIs would not revert to violence. Maybe. Perhaps most are tired of fighting. Perhaps most are deterred by the fact that the U.S. military (and perhaps the Iraqi government) have their biometric information. Perhaps most will be satisfied being plumbers. But here's a news flash: since there are 100,000 of these guys with guns, it wouldn't take most to revert to violence to cause a big problem. A mere 5-20 percent could cause a heck of a fireworks show. Remember, for years the U.S. military estimated the entire Sunni insurgency to be 8,000-20,000 guys.
17 comments:
A big part of this is the age old desire of a strong central government to have complete control of its populace, versus those who desire to remain independent, or at least somewhat so. Telling former insurgents to turn in their guns or face arrest doesn't seem to be the smartest of actions.
As the Iraqi army transitions into a force designed to combat outside aggressors, hopefully, wouldn't they be wise to incorporate hardened, experienced vets? Or am I missing something?
It's beause the SOI are like an existential threat to the Shiites and Kurds that run the government. These are former insurgents that the ruling parties beilieve are Baathists that oppressed them for decades, that were responsible for all the bombings, etc. The SOI are also run by the U.S., and therefore not answerable to the government. It's not that Baghdad is opposed to organizing tribes because they've done that after each one of the crackdowns in 2008, but they are run and loyal to the government.
I for one thought the government was just going to arrest the ones they could and let the rest be unemployed when the U.S. eventually turned the program over to them. That would lead to minimal violence. Now if the government wants to actually launch a crackdown, that's a completely different situation.
Irony of irony, if it does come down to fighting, the U.S. will most likely support the government and use all that intel they have on the SOI to eliminate their former allies.
Man, every time I browse this site I see more good news for my upcoming third deployment to Iraq.
Diamondback 06
It is absolutely BS that USSOF did not know about the raid---to say that a USSOF FID trained unit went off the reservation would mean that absolutely no USSOF was in the area of the raiding ISOF unit---and that is definitely not typical for USSOF FID operations.
Secondly, and what is more interesting is that in late 2005 the MOI Special Police Brigade (Camp Justice) raided into Diyala Province without telling even the battlespace holder the 3/3ID ---arrested 478 Sunni's and took them physically back to Baghdad and after about four weeks released all but 32 of them.
The resulting effects in Diyala---the Sunni insurgency felt that there was absolutely no way to talk with the government and that the government was in fact targeting only Sunni's with the IA/IP and Major Crimes Unit.
Then the violence spiralled out of control---STRANGE that we now have a repeat virtually in the same manner with the eventual same results.
Whoever on this blog thinks that the Sunni insurgency has backed off and has rolled over is in a different time zone---the technology being currently used in IEDs, the attack TTPs, and the new weapons that the Sunni groups are still showing via the IAI, JAMI and even QJBR indicate that if they come out shooting WE will be paying a price that is unacceptable especially when the current GOI does not apparently want reconciliation even within the Shi'a insurgent groups.
Theres the additional point that the US will be standing as honourless liars if it all falls apart. How do you do IO on this one?
"Sorry guys, we promised you work and security if you gave up your biometric data and your families adress, but now a year later we cant keep them and are in fact going to assist the ones who wish to exterminate you and your families with the data you put as a token of trust in our hands. So Sorry, see you next year in New York, hope your wives survive, take care."?
Quote: "Secondly, and what is more interesting is that in late 2005 the MOI Special Police Brigade (Camp Justice) raided into Diyala Province without telling even the battlespace holder the 3/3ID ---"
This is a sovereign country - the Iraqi's own the battlespace. It is the attitude that US forces own battlespace that makes COIN difficult and it is counter-productive. Despite the type of operations and we can disagree with the methods and outcomes; for us to think that we have superior authority over the host nation's police in their own country makes it difficult for us to effectively support COIN because our methods undercut the legitimacy of the Iraqi government. And of course the problem with SOI is that it was a US developed and operated program and competes with Iraqi security forces whether we believe it or not(perception is reality). GEN Petraeus' recent comments about the gains in Iraq being very fragile are exactly correct and this is one of the reasons why. For the short term expediency to help make the "surge strategy" successful we may have caused a long term problem.
So what?The solution of today is the problem of tommorow, what else is new?
You can't have your cake and it too.
"for us to think that we have superior authority over the host nation's police in their own country makes it difficult for us to effectively support COIN because our methods undercut the legitimacy of the Iraqi government."
Dave: This implies that the Iraqi government has a basic legitimacy. One could argue that in the Sunni and Kurd areas this is not the case, and that the forcing of a shia majority dictatorship is not going to help enhancing this. It is the US who has provided legitimacy to the SoI process, if the US now goes back on its promises it will not be nice. For anyone involved.
Well, there had to be a double cross coming sometime.
If Maliki won't intergrate them, and won't hold elections, I say we make it clear a plague on both your houses, we don't help ISF, in which case they don't have us enabling them logistically or otherwise.
Mind you, I think Maliki or whoever is pulling his strings would love to influence our elections here by snatching Amiriki defeat from the Jaws of victory.
Diamondback 06 to Dave
If there were still no elections in 2005, if you are trying as BCTs where in 2005 to separte the warring factions and fight a COIN at the same time---regardless of ones politics and coupled with soldiers dying in that battlespace then you in fact own the battlespace. Do not think for a moment that in 2005 there was not ethic cleansing going on in Diyala.
You miss the fact that the GOI then and now is simply not interested in a power sharing concept---would you be sharing if your perception is that you have been out of power for 1400 years
There's still leverage here that we don't seem to be using. Maliki and the GOI still rely on the U.S. presence to bolster them and, according to some, to survive at all.
There should be an attitude adjustment on our part diplomatically -- make the continued U.S. help to Maliki contingent on the integration of the SOI.
If our presence and aid is conditioned on that integration it would force Maliki to realize he can't consolidate the central government's power without integrating the SOI.
If Maliki won't intergrate them, and won't hold elections, I say we make it clear a plague on both your houses, we don't help ISF, in which case they don't have us enabling them logistically or otherwise.
what planet are you on. how many times was maliki threatened w/'if iraqis don't step up to the plate you will loose our support.' and when did that ever happen? please. one would get the impression us disappearing might not be such a bummer. what's the difference between us not enabling them logistically or otherwise and a withdrawl? we could enable another side? hang out on some bases? my point is we can't threaten them w/withholding logistics because we can't be seem out there carrying out bombings and such all on our own. we need to continue the illusion we have the governments backing, or are 'helping' the government, not the other way around.
You miss the fact that the GOI then and now is simply not interested in a power sharing concept---would you be sharing if your perception is that you have been out of power for 1400 years
another nobrainer. tell me SAIC never thought of that. hey, i have an idea. we can play the parents and ask them to get along.
If our presence and aid is conditioned on that integration it would force Maliki to realize he can't consolidate the central government's power without integrating the SOI.
or not. he may opt to forgo our presence and aid. then what would be our excuse.
dave And of course the problem with SOI is that it was a US developed and operated program and competes with Iraqi security forces whether we believe it or not(perception is reality).
the US may think it owns the battlespace but it does not own the perceptions. we didn't 'create the awakening, we co opted them for a few reasons. one, so we could claim achievement w/theirs, or didn't you notice the big 'surge' success claim in front of congress (to overshadow the fact IG had not passed the benchmarks) was the 'flipping' of the insurgents ...the 'local concerned citizens'. (this was a huge event..moveon placed the ad in nyt and then congress passed a stupid bill condeming the criticizm, hence the 'betrayus' drama ensued, americans have short memories but please) IOW we needed them, bigtime. can you imagine what dire straights mcCain's campaign would be if he had no good news surge talking pts? we needed them, now we don't. furthermore parker said the awakening were on a time schedule culminating on nov 1st. excuse me for being paranoid but i have a clear recollection of another event happening during the window of time between a US election and the swearing in of a president. the advantage being the election isn't affected by events taken place during that time however they have impact prior to the new session of congress.
For the short term expediency to help make the "surge strategy" successful we may have caused a long term problem.
how long? like the long war. too bad none of the big think tanks anticipated this might happen. unless they did.
dr irak for years the U.S. military estimated the entire Sunni insurgency to be 8,000-20,000 guys.
really? i always thought that was just a line of bull to convince the american public the resistance wasn't very powerful. had they thought that to be true they wouldn't have focused so much energy facilitating killing them off the first few years.
What I fail to understand is how, if the bulk of the SOI were folded in to a professional army/law enforcement, the GOI could continue to consider them a threat. Haven't they demonstrated that they are primarily interested in a paycheck and the status of carrying a gun and not attempting some kind of coup? Don't those motives seem earnest?
Is it really as simple as sectarian spite? Does the GOI essentially intend to eventually liquidate these guys whether or not they carry a weapon?
Haven't they demonstrated that they are primarily interested in a paycheck and the status of carrying a gun
they likely have a political agenda as well, ie not dividing their country or having so much influence from iran.
Amagi,
Read the "existential threat" post I made earlier. The government hasn't even integrated the Shiite SOI and there a couple thousand of them. It's all about control and loyalty.
Also, remember that these militias on both sides are largely *openly* criminal elements as well as political entities, and that clan/family/tribe has as much to say if not more as your party affiliation. So its also about market-shares in stolen cars as much as it is about power over who gets wich contracts. And its about blocking others as much as grabbing for your own moyet.
In addition, 30 year of shia bloodrevenge is in play as well.
Post a Comment